Re: Dynamic loading progress

[Daniel Colascione <dancol@dancol.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 865 bytes --]

On 10/04/2015 12:55 PM, Paul Eggert wrote:
> Daniel Colascione wrote:
>> Any compiler modern enough to support C99 also
>> supports synthesizing 64-bit integers from whatever the platform makes
>> available.
> 
> No, all that C99 requires is support for integers *at least* 64 bits. 
> C99 does not require support for int64_t, i.e., integers that are
> *exactly* 64 bits.
> 
> If we need a type that is at least 64 bits wide, we can use int_fast64_t
> or int_least64_t.  These types are required by C99 and will work even on
> the rare platforms that lack native 64-bit words.  But really, I'm
> hoping we can avoid the *int*64* stuff.  What's the point of putting a
> 64-bit limit on an API that is supposed to be long-lived and portable?

Can you really imagine a general-purpose machine with 128-bit words? Why
would you build such a thing?


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]